Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

From the birth of the Dreadnought to the period immediately after the end of World War I.
gcogger
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by gcogger »

I've read that, in addition to the oil purification and water desalination equipment damage, ammunition for the main guns could have become an issue. I've seen figures of between 60% and "2/3" of the 11" ammunition already expended. If true, a fight against Cumberland and the 2 light cruisers could have been problematic.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:30 am gentlemen,
Many thanks for your detailed replies although the bit about the torso falling was a bit graphic, but this is something that happens but is rarely talked about! I do wonder that if AGS had had 6 X 11" in three twin turrets whether this might have given her a better chance of taking on the three RN cruisers who were flanking her? It is a long time since I read about the battle, but I seem to recall that it was mainly the 8" shells from Exeter that were really hurting her which makes me think that once Exeter was out of the fight AGS should have been able to dispose of the two 6" cruisers without too much trouble or having to worry about their shells doing much damage.
Re the idea for a larger version of the AGS ships, I suppose they would have had the same problems if they encountered a convoy escorted by a battleship, but if the RN had decided to build more to that design instead of concentrating on heavily large armed battlecruisers in the 1920's then it would have provided an excellent way to escort their convoys.
One can only wonder!
Would it have made much difference (3x2 as opposed to 2x3)? You still have 6 shells in the air. Could she have assigned a turret per cruiser? I suppose so but wouldn't one of the turrets have to be in 'local control' (going on the premise that AGS has two directors)?


Personally I'd have rather have had the G3's.

They would have been competitive for their expected service lives I'd have thought? The problem with a lighter ships is that invariably they end up fighting ships that they were not designed to go toe to toe with. Sometimes luck is on your side.Sometimes its not and I'd rather be behind the armour of a G3 than thin armour of a 'super' cruiser.

Also if it was super cruisers required then the RN had the remaining 'splendid cats' up till 1921 and Washington. If the treaty didn't exist wouldn't a re-boilered (small tube) Lion/Princess Royal/Tiger fit that bill?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

HMSVF wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:30 pm
Would it have made much difference (3x2 as opposed to 2x3)? You still have 6 shells in the air. Could she have assigned a turret per cruiser? I suppose so but wouldn't one of the turrets have to be in 'local control' (going on the premise that AGS has two directors)?
I think the key factor for this battle is the rate of fire of the turrets: 2 salvoes per minute.

With 3 turrets of two guns, presumably the same firing arrangement as Exeter, I would expect a much faster rate of fire. To be fully effective at the start the full armament has to concentrate fire on the strongest enemy, to eliminate that enemy. Splitting fire at that point is very risky, it is better to target the three ships one by one, using the advantage of superior reach.

Similary you could also argue that the 5.9 inch guns should be in two gun turrets as well, to give better protection to their crews and achieve a much better standard of shooting.

Actually I think the best use of 3 x 2 turret arrangement on a pocket battleship would have been on Admiral Scheer in her attack on convoy HX 84.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

HMSVF wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:22 am
I've read more than once online that she had received damage to her diesel and water purification systems that had the effect of completely nobbling her chances of ever getting anywhere near home.
This probably comes from the damage submissions made to the Uruguayan Navy inspection team, who were told that a repair period of three weeks would be required by the German engineers. These submissions were believed by the Uruguayan inspectors to be exagerrated statements of the damage for the purpose of keeping AGS in Montevideo for as long as possible - they reckoned the damage should have taken three days to repair.

Neither was the AGS completely alone - she had the services of the Tacoma available at Montevideo, while outside, assuming the AGS could get past Harwood, there was the Altmark, which was not an ordinary supply tanker but a KM support ship specifically there to service the AGS.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Steve Crandell »

RF wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:25 pm
HMSVF wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:30 pm
Would it have made much difference (3x2 as opposed to 2x3)? You still have 6 shells in the air. Could she have assigned a turret per cruiser? I suppose so but wouldn't one of the turrets have to be in 'local control' (going on the premise that AGS has two directors)?
I think the key factor for this battle is the rate of fire of the turrets: 2 salvoes per minute.

With 3 turrets of two guns, presumably the same firing arrangement as Exeter, I would expect a much faster rate of fire. To be fully effective at the start the full armament has to concentrate fire on the strongest enemy, to eliminate that enemy. Splitting fire at that point is very risky, it is better to target the three ships one by one, using the advantage of superior reach.

Similary you could also argue that the 5.9 inch guns should be in two gun turrets as well, to give better protection to their crews and achieve a much better standard of shooting.

Actually I think the best use of 3 x 2 turret arrangement on a pocket battleship would have been on Admiral Scheer in her attack on convoy HX 84.
Why would a two gun turret necessarily fire faster than a three (or four) gun turret? I don't think that was demonstrated in the real world, as long as the loading arrangements were similar. For some reason the Graf Spee guns are shown on Navweaps to fire significantly slower than those on the Scharnhorst class, but those are both ships with three gun turrets.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Byron Angel »

Apart from the mechanical aspects of the turret ammunition handling machinery, rate of fire would also be affected by engagement range, quality of visibility and the aggressiveness with which the firing ship was maneuvering.

But, in addition, the need to fire spottable salvoes was important to sense salvo MPI. Four shot salvoes were considered proper “industry standard”, three shot salvoes were of marginal utility; any number of shots less than three per salvo was really considered inadequate. This would have applied whether or not gunnery/FC radar was in use.

AGS correctly focused upon Exeter as the greatest threat, but IMO could not have effectively split the fire of her main battery.

Byron
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by HMSVF »

Byron Angel wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 12:43 am Apart from the mechanical aspects of the turret ammunition handling machinery, rate of fire would also be affected by engagement range, quality of visibility and the aggressiveness with which the firing ship was maneuvering.

But, in addition, the need to fire spottable salvoes was important to sense salvo MPI. Four shot salvoes were considered proper “industry standard”, three shot salvoes were of marginal utility; any number of shots less than three per salvo was really considered inadequate. This would have applied whether or not gunnery/FC radar was in use.

AGS correctly focused upon Exeter as the greatest threat, but IMO could not have effectively split the fire of her main battery.

Byron
Vice versa - Im sure that I read somewhere that the 'Renown' class armament of 6 x15 inch (in 3x2 ) was deemed as not the best for salvo shooting (that 8 was better - I assume because as you say 4 was the industry standard and you split the difference).

Could a ship of this vintage even target (via directors) at 3 different vessels ? If you have a main director and an aft one that's 2 of the 3 ships targeted.

What about the third? I assume that the remaining turret would have to be fought in local control. If you have a turret firing at each target it could be a long afternoon!
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Byron Angel »

Hi HMSVF,
Speaking strictly as someone who has read a few books on the subject, simultaneously engaging all three opponents would not have been my first choice.

But that is just a civilian’s opinion.

Byron
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by HMSVF »

Byron Angel wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:31 pm Hi HMSVF,
Speaking strictly as someone who has read a few books on the subject, simultaneously engaging all three opponents would not have been my first choice.

But that is just a civilian’s opinion.

Byron
As another civilian....

Nor mine!


I suppose I would hope that I could hit Exeter hard and fast enough before suffering damage that would make me 'Hors de combat' and hoping that the secondaries could likewise do the same to Ajax and Achilles!

I dont know enough to say whether a 2x3 or 3x2 configuration would make a meaningful difference. You still have to wait for a fall of shot. I suppose that once you had the range you could open the taps...

Would it make a meaningful difference? I don't know. Is it possible that Langsdorff was trying to methodical with his firing rather shooting off like a redneck with a pump action shotgun? Who knows?


Thats the great thing about this site - everyday is a learning experience!



Best wishes HMSVF
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Byron Angel »

Hi HMSVF,
I moved down to South Carolina about five years ago from Boston MA. Do not underestimate the skill of a "redneck" with any sort of firearm. Believe me!

:cool:

Byron
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Re AGS, even had she completed her repairs and chosen to fight it out, I suspect she would have either been sunk or suffered very heavy damage, Cumberland was an 8 x 8" cruiser as opposed to the 6 x* 8" on Exeter and combined with the other two would have overwhelmed her.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by RF »

But a battle between Scharnhorst and Cumberland/Exeter/Ajax/Achilles would have been interesting.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi RF,
Yes it would, but my money would probably be on Scharnhorst unless a combination of hits took out her radar or range finders,I don't think the 6" cruisers were likely to be able to damage her to much and she should have been well armoured enough to take a lot from even 8" shells - at North Cape she was hit by several 14" and still almost got away, although if the weather was bad it might end in Scharnhorst making a run for it with the cruisers unable to keep up.
re AGS, do you think Cumberland could have taken her on by herself - 8 x 8" is quite a lot of firepower against a fairly lightly armoured ship?
Again, I suppose its all down to who hits first and hardest.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:01 am Hi RF,
Yes it would, but my money would probably be on Scharnhorst unless a combination of hits took out her radar or range finders,I don't think the 6" cruisers were likely to be able to damage her to much and she should have been well armoured enough to take a lot from even 8" shells - at North Cape she was hit by several 14" and still almost got away, although if the weather was bad it might end in Scharnhorst making a run for it with the cruisers unable to keep up.
re AGS, do you think Cumberland could have taken her on by herself - 8 x 8" is quite a lot of firepower against a fairly lightly armoured ship?
Again, I suppose its all down to who hits first and hardest.
Yes it would, but my money would probably be on Scharnhorst unless a combination of hits took out her radar or range finders

In which case we need the gods to place HMS Norfolk in HMS Cumberland's place! Didn't she have a knack of toppling rangefinders!?


My gut feeling in a County/Ajax/Achilles battle is that the RN would lose at least 2 ships if not all 3, but Scharnhorst would be up the creek as well, as she is 1000's of miles from home having fired off an inordinate amount of ammunition and likely to have suffered some damage that would impair her seaworthiness.


She then has to make all the way home, escaping the clutches of a very angry RN which will be swarming like bees who have just had their hive kicked.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Royal Navy Super Battleships and Battlecruisers

Post by Byron Angel »

Indeed, one can view such an engagement from either a tactical or operational perspective. From the tactical point of view, replacing AGS with Scharnhorst would have conferred important tactical advantages upon the Germans: better armor, 50pct larger main battery with better model guns in the bargain, plus 4kts(?) greater speed which implies a better chance for Schrnhorst to escape in the event of several British ships losing even a modest amount of speed.

Strategically/operationally, Scharnhorst is very far from home and there is still a very large part of the RN interposed between her and safety.

B
Post Reply